 | | Re: LNP Repost —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | (...) My only thoughts are that not everybody will need or want the generality of port support in the protocol. I would suggest reordering the first four bytes, moving the payload length up toward the front, and defining it to explicitly include the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LNP Repost (Me banging on about checksums) —Kevin Baker
|
| | | | | (...) With much respect, I would suggest that CRC8 is probably not sufficient, especially if we go for a broadcast (Ethernet) solution, where lots of collisions, and hence errors, will probably occur - with CRC8 you will probably miss about 1 in 256 (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: LNP Repost (Me banging on about checksums) —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | | | (...) You will miss about 1 in 256 errors that you do not catch earlier using collision detection. I think your error rate per message will be much less than 1 in 256 if you (can?) get the collision detection code right. But we shouldn't argue the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | LNP - lets get coding. —Kevin Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) Hi, Didn't mean to come across as arguing - sorry if I did! As you say, lets get coding LNP (My assumption is that the coding bit hasn't started yet, if it has, please accept my apologies & let me know how it is going!). I guess the things (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LNP - lets get coding. —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | | | (...) No, you didn't - I just didn't wanted to make sure I wasn't :) (...) This has already been done, for Librcx at least; don't know if anybody took a look at the code I put at: (URL) mentioned wanting to maybe take a look at that; porting to (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LNP - lets get coding. —Kevin Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) I have just grabbed a copy - will have a look! Where do you suggest we go from here? I'm up for creating an initial API and getting some code cut (Within my limits - I know little/nothing about Linux & MacOS, and as yes LegOS). However, I'm (...) (25 years ago, 1-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: LNP - lets get coding. —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | | | (...) Regarding where to go from here, if you step up to do the coding, I believe where to go is up to you. I don't know if that is how it usually works, but I certainly wouldn't want to be coding up something I am not happy with, so I would expect (...) (25 years ago, 1-Aug-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: LNP Repost —Ben Laurie
|
| | | | (...) I'm not sure you can construct a sensible CRC16 that has a CRC8 as one byte. Cheers, Ben. -- (URL) grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: LNP Repost —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | (...) I think Kekoa means that we should calculate the CRC16 and use only the high byte in the message, to save space. If we then tag the low byte on later, the old code expecting only the high byte won't break.... Cheers, Ralph Hempel - P.Eng (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| | | | |
